Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Viviane

  You are prevaricating. Apparently you don't want to answer the question asked. Fine. That puts you in a class I discriminate against.

  Well that's stupid. I ask again. It's not my problem that you can't explain why you don't know something.

  Where have I asserted such a thing? Is that what I said, or is it your preferential reading of something I said?

  And I quote you specifically.. Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination.

  What you wrote means, in case you are unaware, means that as long as there is a law, it's legal. In that world, slavery and women not being allowed to vote is legal. Is that what you meant?

  That said, and to the point of the discussion at hand regarding laws and punishing with law, I think the fair thing is to make sure laws are written clear enough for individuals to have ample opportunity to know how those laws will be used against them as punishment. If a law has to be interpreted by courts to form common law then that common law should also be asserted to give time for citizens to understand what is expected of them before asserting punitive measures based on the interpretation.

  So.... you should take your own advice and think before you speak? Basically, you 100% agree, but haven't figured that out yet? Unless, of course, you think it's ok to hate on black people and women?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Viviane,

  
  Pardon me for pointing this out, but saying "Discrimination is not wrong under the law" is not saying "If it was legal it should be fine" or "It is OK as long as the law allowed it". My statement is said in relation to law and how that law is asserted. What I've said is not the broad statement you suggest of me.

  
  

  What you wrote means, in case you are unaware, means that as long as there is a law, it's legal. In that world, slavery and women not being allowed to vote is legal. Is that what you meant?

  Not exactly.

  More precisely what I've said means that if there is no law against [name your poison] then [name your poison] is not illegal. So, if there was not law against preventing [name any race] from voting then preventing [name any race] from voting would not be illegal. But there is a law against preventing [name any race] from voting hence preventing [name any race] from voting is illegal.

  So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?
  
• 

  Viviane

  Pardon me for pointing this out, but saying "Discrimination is not wrong under the law" is not saying "If it was legal it should be fine" or "It is OK as long as the law allowed it". My statement is said in relation to law and how that law is asserted. What I've said is not the broad statement you suggest of me.

  But that's what you actually wrote. Is that not what you mean? You wrote "Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination".

  That means that discrimination is fine as law as there is no law against it in your opinion.

  More precisely what I've said means that if there is no law against [name your poison] then [name your poison] is not illegal. But there is a law against preventing [name any race] from voting hence preventing [name any race] from voting is illegal.

  Fine, but that's not what you said previously. Are you now changing to that?

  So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

  This is such a fascinating question. I am not sure if you are asking because you don't know the difference between civil and state court proceedings or because you think it's somehow a "gotcha" question that will really get me. Perhaps you think it's a trick question or trap.
• 

  DJS

  Onward X-Tian Haters (to extinction ASAP):

  1. Indiana-based tech company Angie's List halts $40 million HQ expansion in Indianapolis.

  2. GA house cancels religious freedom law meeting: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/29/ga-house-cancels-religious-freedom-bill-meeting/70652168/

  3. Montana religious "freedom" bill dies in a 50-50 vote. March 27, 2015, 12:18pm EDT

  4. Blowback to anti-gay law hits Indiana as tech leaders, politicians, entertainers heap condemnation on state

  6. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff relocates the company's conference.

  7. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians...

  Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, “That’s not on my agenda.”
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  You wrote "Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination".
  That means that discrimination is fine as law as there is no law against it in your opinion.

  My words you've quoted above certainly do not connote what you suggest. I have not opined that if there is no law against a certain thing than that thing is "fine" in my book. My words you quote say if something is not illegal then it is not illegal. Please note the phrase "not wrong UNDER THE LAW"!!! Whether a law is "fine" or not "fine" is something else.
  

  This is such a fascinating question. I am not sure if you are asking because you don't know the difference between civil and state court proceedings or because you think it's somehow a "gotcha" question that will really get me. Perhaps you think it's a trick question or trap.

  I'm asking because I'm trying to understand you and things you say as it relates to discrimination and what is "fine" or not "fine" and what should be legal or illegal.

  
  - So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

  And, no, I have not changed my mind about anything I've said in this discussion so far. If a view of mine changes I'm more than happy to say so. I'm here to learn and share, and grow in the process. That's how it should be for everyone.
  
  
• 

  never a jw

  They do have the right to discriminate. Let them be stupid, that should be a protected right. This exercise of freedom is no different from Simon's right to cut off some bloggers for whatever reason, or for no reason at all. It's his site, and he can do whatever he wants with it. It's their religion too, and they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they don't cause physical harm to others.

  Many of us may wish that shunning were outlawed, but by doing that we fall into a slippery slope. Let's keep the freedom of religion concept clear and simple. Don't try to conveniently adjust it to a personal preconceived ideal view of the world.
• 

  Viviane

  My words you've quoted above certainly do not connote what you suggest. I have not opined that if there is no law against a certain thing than that thing is "fine" in my book. My words you quote say if something is not illegal then it is not illegal. Please note the phrase "not wrong UNDER THE LAW"!!! Whether a law is "fine" or not "fine" is something else.

  Yes, if something is not illegal then it's OK to do. It's fine. You keep re-phrasing it, but still saying the same tautology over and over but disagreeing that you are saying that.

  I'm asking because I'm trying to understand you and things you say as it relates to discrimination and what is "fine" or not "fine" and what should be legal or illegal.

  You could simply ask that.

  So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

  I think that question doesn't make any sense.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Yes, if something is not illegal then it's OK to do. It's fine. You keep re-phrasing it, but still saying the same tautology over and over but disagreeing that you are saying that.

  Let's be clear about your words "then it's OK to do."
  What I've said is that if something is not illegal then it's OKAY in terms of legality. Saying "then it's OK to do" is a much broader concept and is why I've objected to things you suggested of my comments.

  You could simply ask that.

  I'm sure your view of yourself is different than mine, but on this subject you're not a very good communicator plus you're anxious to accuse. In my case you've either intentionally contorted things I've said in attempt to construct a strawman to then object to, or else you've completely missed the boat. Your style of communication compelled me to put out a sample question to test the edges of whatever position you hold. And, you still have avoided the question though answering it easy enough. By itself that is telling!

  I think that question doesn't make any sense.

  Another excuse for not answering the question asked.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  They do have the right to discriminate. Let them be stupid, that should be a protected right. This exercise of freedom is no different from Simon's right to cut off some bloggers for whatever reason, or for no reason at all. It's his site, and he can do whatever he wants with it. It's their religion too, and they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they don't cause physical harm to others.

  I'm not so sure that discrimination of gays (such as refusing service to a gay marriage event) should be a protected act just because a person has a religious bias against the event. As another poster pointed out (I think Viviane) there is a State interest in commerce that deserves protection too. So we have competing interests at stake. We have, for example, 1) gays who want to marry, 2) christian extremists who do not want to provide services to a gay marriage event and we have 3) the State's interest in preserving and growing commerce. There may be other interests at stake too. But these come to mind first. Balancing these under the law is what society is grappling with right now.

  To be fair I think the way forward is for legislatures and judiciaries to make clear what the rules are moving forward but judiciaries should refrain from punitive measures based on retro-application of new legal interpretation.
• 

  Viviane

  Let's be clear about your words "then it's OK to do."
  What I've said is that if something is not illegal then it's OKAY in terms of legality. Saying "then it's OK to do" is amuch broader concept and is why I've objected to things you suggested of my comments.

  Yes, if it's not illegal, then it's OK to do. You're arguing with yourself, I hope you realize.

  I'm sure your view of yourself is different than mine, but on this subject you're not a very good communicator plus you're anxious to accuse. In my case you've either intentionally contorted things I've said in attempt to construct a strawman to then object to, or else you've completely missed the boat.

  I'm quoting you. I can't help it if you want to argue that your words mean something other than what you keep saying.

  Another excuse for not answering the question asked.

  I've never said I would answer it nor am I obligated in any sense to answer it. It just so happens that the question doesn't make sense concurrent with my complete lack of obligation.

  What do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

  I find it fascinating that you keep asking a question that doesn't make sense.